The modern day philosophes that speak or claim to speak for conservatives and libertarians seem to sound a tone of similar beliefs when it comes to small government, decentralized government, minimization or elimination of social services from government, issues of unions and minimum wages, lowered taxes, high market liberalization and gun rights in most cases.

The few things that I find that is different between the two philosophies is in foreign policy, neo-con conservatives are more hawkish and libertarians more in dubbish when it comes to sending troops or related equipment for kinetic action and on the issues of gay rights.

Different web pages offer different views and research on the subject of the differences between the libertarians and conservatives so for those who are or know of those who are of either school of thought, what are the differences that you see that need to be corrected or that is beyond my summarization of the subject?

"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever

The main differences I see between the two philosophies or political beliefs are that:
-Conservatives have a social component to their platform, while Libertarians tend to shy away from social issues
-As stated, Libertarians would rather focus inside the borders, while Conservatives want to take a more actively roleon the world stage.

Neo-conservatives are not really conservatives at all. Neo-cons are actually an offshoot or subgroup of liberals, some would say reformed liberals. The notions of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" are very much liberal ideals, and the primary difference is neo-conservatives are willing to use force to do so.

So overall, neo-cons are actually liberals, libertarians tend to be some flavor of isolationist, and actual conservatives are somewhere in the middle. A significant portion of them are hardcore Zionists who dislike brown skinned towelheads.

People who talk about "family values" are not libertarians. Actual libertarians probably won't talk about it, since that's kinda part of the deal.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):The main differences I see between the two philosophies or political beliefs are that:
-Conservatives have a social component to their platform, while Libertarians tend to shy away from social issues
-As stated, Libertarians would rather focus inside the borders, while Conservatives want to take a more actively roleon the world stage.

FYI. When referring to the political belief, you use the lower case "l" and when referring to the political party, you use the upper case "L". Not all folks with libertarian beliefs or leanings are members of the Libertarian Party. In addition, not all political parties with libertarian beliefs are conservative or even on that side of the political spectrum. Libertarianism runs the full spectrum from liberal to moderate to conservative and in the US, it tends to have elements on the liberal side and elements on the conservative side (In some respects, the Libertarian Party in the US is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.). The Tea Party movement has meshed with elements of the Libertarian Party because of similar views about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Look at how Ron Paul has followers in both the Republican and Libertarian Parties.

The problem with every single one of these labels is that they are used to describe groups of people in their entireties. That approach simply cannot work and is the ruination of any reasonable discussion, if taken to an extreme, because every single person defines those terms individually - all of us are individuals, therefore no two people think exactly alike. There is no monolithic left, there is no single right wing and there is no clearly definable centre which could be described by one of those moronic bulleted "You are a true ... if..." lists. We've simply got too many issues on our agendas for those groups to agree on every single one of them.

And since those huge groups do not exist, no matter how much certain media outlets want to make you believe it, there is no way to tell how they should act.

Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1):The main differences I see between the two philosophies or political beliefs are that:
-Conservatives have a social component to their platform, while Libertarians tend to shy away from social issues
-As stated, Libertarians would rather focus inside the borders, while Conservatives want to take a more actively roleon the world stage.

You have several kinds of conservatives. You have your fiscal conservatives, who are very much allied with libertarians, you have your social conservatives, who are not. Neoconservatives are more socially conservative but fiscally more liberal. But in all of these the idea of subsidiarity, self-reliance and respect of achievement is quite high.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):People who talk about "family values" are not libertarians.

Correct.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):The notions of "spreading democracy" and "nation building" are very much liberal ideals

Taking things at face value that might be true. But the neocons aren't really interested in those things as their top priority. Their main objective is protecting Israel. Period. Nation building in S America or Africa is of no interest because Israel isn't threatened. Doug Feith, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, etc. are only interested in invading Iraq, the "War on Terror" and a muscular defense because these all serve Israeli interests.

Zionism is an element of neocon thought and many of them are Jewish or evangelical Christians. Neocons pushed stronger positions against China and the USSR in decades past. They also were the ones disappointed that Saddam was allowed to remain in power after the Gulf War, but never regained much political power until the second Bush administration.

It's easy to conflate unconditional support for Israel with neoconservatism, and indeed many of the players are the same, but neocon policies do extend beyond Israel.

Oddly enough, when talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the real reasons were firmly rooted in liberal neocon thinking with the mistake and/or fabrication regarding the presence of WMDs there to appeal to conservative thinkers.

This oversimplifying categorization almost exclusively speaks to the degenerated american political spectrum as a result of the problematic electoral system and has almost nothing to do with the actual meaning of the respective terms, but just with the accidental opposing camps which have at some time started to use those labels within a very narrow context.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):Neo-cons are actually an offshoot or subgroup of liberals, some would say reformed liberals.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): Many neo-cons started out as liberals who supported the Vietnam War

If they were, the "liberals" would have embrased them. Instead, FOX went running to them and the "liberals" actually spoke out against them. And it was the "liberals" who were called unpatriotic and the neo-cons who were praised. They are part of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.

See, those "liberal" neo-cons loved Vietnam so much because they made tons of money off that war. They wanted us in Vietnam as long as possible so they could make tons of money. They were hardly in the same league as Jane Fonda and protesters gunned down at Kent State.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):If they were, the "liberals" would have embrased them.

The liberals did embarrass them in the 1960s, which is why they distanced themselves and became a different group.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):Instead, FOX went running to them and the "liberals" actually spoke out against them.

Neocons existed long before there was any Fox News. Many neocons began to split from the Democratic party due to George McGovern's anti-war sentiments and only began to enter the Republican realm thanks to Reagan's strong anti-Soviet stance.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):They are part of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.

Being a neo-conservative is not really a business proposition. Identifying oneself as being or not being a neo-con is usually something done among policymakers. But, for what it's worth, one notable politician and member of the military industrial complex spent much of the 1990s being against neo-conservatism: Dick Cheney.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):See, those "liberal" neo-cons loved Vietnam so much because they made tons of money off that war.

Not really. They were a group of politicians, intellectuals and advisers, not a group of voters or lobbyists. I doubt that then or now you would find voters who consider themselves neo-cons.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):They were hardly in the same league as Jane Fonda and protesters gunned down at Kent State.

Duh. That's why they were neo-cons and not liberals. Neo-conservatives were mostly a group of Democrats who supported the Vietnam war and rejected the counterculture of the 1960s. After all, the Vietnamese deserved freedom and democracy too, just like blacks in America.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 9):This oversimplifying categorization almost exclusively speaks to the degenerated american political spectrum as a result of the problematic electoral system and has almost nothing to do with the actual meaning of the respective terms, but just with the accidental opposing camps which have at some time started to use those labels within a very narrow context.

Seb is illustrating this nicely. There is who neo-cons actually were and are and what neo-conservatism is actually about and then there is how the term is used by many today, which would be basically a pejorative to describe anyone connected with the Bush administration or the invasion of Iraq. Liberals use the term "neo-con" the way kindergartners use the term "poopy head."

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):I doubt that then or now you would find voters who consider themselves neo-cons.

Even the ones who vote for the neo-con legislation put on ballots by neo-cons and endorsed by FOX? I would say that is pretty much endorsing neo-conservatism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):Being a neo-conservative is not really a business proposition. Identifying oneself as being or not being a neo-con is usually something done among policymakers.

Except they make huge amounts of money off it. That sounds like a business proposition to me. But, according to you, it is not. These days, especially on the right, policy making and making money are one-in-the-same.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):Liberals use the term "neo-con" the way kindergartners use the term "poopy head."

Well... no. If you spent any time at all listening and reading "liberals" you would know they are VASTLY different. "Liberals" use the term "neo-con" to refer to those in the Bush administration who are all for war to make money. They are different than tea people who are different that Republicans who are different than Zionists who are different than Liberatarians (sp) who are different that.... you get the idea.

Unlike right-wingers who just lump everyone against the right into one group and tell rural America "hate them for they are what is wrong with this country!"

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):Even the ones who vote for the neo-con legislation put on ballots by neo-cons and endorsed by FOX? I would say that is pretty much endorsing neo-conservatism.

Neo-conservatism almost exclusively deals with foreign policy matters. Those don't end up as propositions on ballots. Even finding politicians who are strong neo-cons isn't the easiest thing. Real neo-cons tend to reside largely among the ranks of advisers and intellectuals, who are generally not elected.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):Except they make huge amounts of money off it. That sounds like a business proposition to me. But, according to you, it is not. These days, especially on the right, policy making and making money are one-in-the-same.

They don't though. Neo-cons are not banking billions working in foreign policy think tanks. Businesses want to move merchandise, they don't care so much about the foreign policy to do it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):"Liberals" use the term "neo-con" to refer to those in the Bush administration who are all for war to make money.

If that's actually what they do then they have basically no understanding of what neo-conservatism actually is.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):They are different than tea people who are different that Republicans who are different than Zionists who are different than Liberatarians (sp) who are different that.... you get the idea.

What's your point? That's like saying that being Catholic is different from being a Cowboys fan.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):If you spent any time at all listening and reading "liberals" you would know they are VASTLY different.

Well, yeah. Compared to a member of the Occupy movement, the kindergartner is more likely to soil themselves but less likely to hate bathing.